2026-cv-03524

COMPLAINT filed by Brigid Ashwood; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24916145.

(Exhibit 1)

Schedule A to Complaint 1 by Brigid Ashwood

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood by Yi Bu

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.

MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Upon review of the copyright infringement complaint 1, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 25 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 25 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. The Court also questions whether Plaintiff has shown that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. To establish personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that the defendants actually sold the allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois. See Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074, 2026 WL 880018, at *1 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026) (citing Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 400 (7th Cir. 2020)). Accordingly, by April 9, 2026, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder and personal jurisdiction are proper or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity and grounds for personal jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Mailed notice (gel,)

Amended Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery [18] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery as the Court finds that expedited discovery is warranted to obtain Defendant's contact information, but Plaintiff's request for discovery into Defendant's financial information is denied without prejudice. Enter Order Authorizing Expedited Discovery. A status report regarding progress of expedited discovery and proposed next steps in the case is due by 5/21/26, if other appropriate relief has not been sought by that date. Mailed notice

ORDER FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED DISCOVERY Signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 4/30/2026. Mailed notice

MOTION by Plaintiff Brigid Ashwood for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(F)(3)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service [22] is granted. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective way to communicate with online marketplace defendants. Enter Order Authorizing Electronic Service of Process. Motion hearing set for 5/20/26 [24] is stricken. A status report regarding next steps is due by 6/15/26, if other appropriate relief has not been sought by that date. Mailed notice (gel,)